Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

I could set up a local consulate, or something.
And you've got John Wayne on your side!

"Republic. I like the sound of the word.... Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words. "

Bob Wills, Nascar and God. Now you're talking. I've waited years for this day.

It's been a while since I've been to the races, but I can hear the rumble from the county fairgrounds every Saturday night in the summertime. You feign surprise, but I wonder if you really have much of a clue about the traditionalist sensibilities of small-town rural America - fading, yes, but not gone yet. Lacking a formal, hierarchical social structure and its religious support, we do the best we can, as the song in the post conveys beautifully.

As for Al's utterly humorless comment, which again borders on calumny (a nasty habit, that), someone please remind me not to invite him to parties. I have a feeling he would like nothing better than to see people like me hanged for his Stalinist version of "treason".

Graham, a republic is something we used to be good at over here, but I can't say it makes me "tight in the throat". It's just what we are, and when it works it works pretty well. Anyway, go ahead and plan for that consulate. We'd love to have you. Sometimes history takes a surprising turn!

Jeff,
Small town America, that's me. I live in a county where there are more deer than people, one the Michigan Militia calls home. We've got more NRAers than Democrats. We're for gun control here, if by that you mean having a steady aim. All that, and the Michigan International Speedway, NASCAR's home field, is just a few miles down Route 12. Twice a year we become stock car heaven.

The city council is thinking about making Trace Atkins a saint -- as if he weren't one already.

By taking a nice song and using it to advocate rebellion and treason against the Union?

But Comprehensive Immigration Reform, aka. amnesty, is not treason? Refusing to uphold duly passed immigration law and honor one's oath to the Constitution is not treason? But aiding and abetting the Hispanic invasion of America is not treason? What say you?

Graham, a republic is something we used to be good at over here, but I can't say it makes me "tight in the throat".

Maybe not strictly the world "republic" but "American Republic" does make me a little tight in the throat and I think that's what Davy Crockett had in mind there. Not just an idea but a substantive reality filled with a particular people and way of life.

When Mr. Waylon Jennings died America lost a truly distinctive voice. I absolutely still love his music and voice.

In a too-neglected Double CD "White Mansions/Legend of Jessie James," Mr Waylon Jennings sings a fair amount on "White Mansions" and whenever I listen to him sing on that CD, when I hear his deep, rich, soulful voice, and I hear his mournful low-note guitar playing, I always imagine that I am hearing a chain of memory being dragged across the rocky floor of some long-forgotten Southern Sepulcher.

And the chain is being dragged by a hated Haint, dressed in his ragged Confederate Gray Long Coat, and the chain he is dragging is comprised of the links of lies, enmity, and ignorance, forged in the minds of the Jacobinite North and imprisoning nearly the entire populace with its haughty and vindictive "memory," and this Haint will haunt that sepulcher until America releases him from his bondage with the key of righteousness; a righteousness that, finally, after long last, gives the Southern Cause its due respect and honors the memories of the descendants of those who fought with such heroic courage.

That last paragraph is a gem, V.C. To begin to lay that haint, one could do worse than to read Robert Penn Warren's little book The Legacy of the Civil War, written in 1961 on the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Late Unpleasantness, at the request of Life Magazine. A lot of wisdom in 100 pages.

"and this Haint will haunt that sepulcher until America releases him from his bondage with the key of righteousness; a righteousness that, finally, after long last, gives the Southern Cause its due respect and honors the memories of the descendants of those who fought with such heroic courage."

That others might remain in chains and bondage (to complete the thought).

Rob, I dwell about as far west as one can go in the continental U.S. and hence an solidly in the blue.

Al, you in particular ought to pick up a copy of Warren's little essay. Be encouraged that while he's tough on the North, he in no way lets the South slide. It's called "balance," in case you haven't heard of it.

"I dwell about as far west as one can go in the continental U.S. and hence an solidly in the blue"

Poor al must live in some part of that grey area to be subsumed by the country of Texas.

Bill, I think Al lives right there with the rest of his tribe, in occupied coastal California (now Baja Canada). But it's great that 2/3 of California gets to be a colony of Texas.

The map's hysterical. I just wish you hadn't left Lydia stuck in the blue. It looks like a run for the border wouldn't be a long one, though.

I know. It's too bad about Lydia, and also about Wisconsin, but a treaty's a treaty. By the way, I don't know who made this map or where it came from. A Texan friend shared it with me. Texans think big.

Jeff, Small town America, that's me. I live in a county where there are more deer than people, one the Michigan Militia calls home. We've got more NRAers than Democrats. We're for gun control here, if by that you mean having a steady aim. All that, and the Michigan International Speedway, NASCAR's home field, is just a few miles down Route 12. Twice a year we become stock car heaven.

The city council is thinking about making Trace Atkins a saint -- as if he weren't one already.

OK, my apologies. Sounds like home, except we've got more cows than deer. I can't prove it, but Orlanders used to brag that this town had more churches - and more saloons! - per capita than any city in America for its size. Supposedly it was recorded in some book of world records. Most of the taverns have closed.

Vermont Crank, that was a great video clip. Thanks for sharing it. And I have to agree with Rob: I'm often surprised by your eloquence. I grew up with Waylon Jennings, who always seemed to me a cut above his fellow "outlaws" in character and depth. I'm still trying to lose my own "badass country boy" streak, of which I am not at all proud, but there are some stories only Waylon can tell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V13y7n49yfU .

My dear Graham, may you be richly rewarded, in this life and the next, for your flyover-country sympathies. Next time you're in California's northern hinterlands please spend some time at St. Isidore Ranch.

James II was a pretty easy-going fellow for someone "trying to make Protestant England Catholic." He was deposed because his wife had a baby boy, and the legality of Parliament's deposing a king in favor of his Protestant adult daughter and her husband simply because his wife had a baby boy is, shall we say, dubious. As a Protestant, I can sympathize with the desire of the English not to have an indefinite Catholic dynasty, but it's really pretty difficult to defend the Glorious Revolution on legal grounds or even, one has to admit, moral grounds. Presumably that's why the non-jurors, who were of course Anglicans, held their oath to James II to be binding after the Revolution. But at least it was a kid-glove revolution. No heads rolled.

Macaulay, after writing eight hundred pages about James's three-year rule, concluded that "with so many virtues he might, if he had been a Protestant, nay, if he had been a moderate Roman Catholic, have had a prosperous and glorious rein."

Durant continues on pp. 290-291:

When James commended Louis XIV's Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, England concluded that if James had power as absolute as that of the Bourbon, he would take similar measures against English Protestants. James made no concealment of his belief that his power was already absolute, and that Louis XIV was his ideal of a king. For a time he accepted subsidies from Louis, but he refused to let him dictate the policies of the English government, and the subsidies ended.

Louis was wiser about England than about his own country; while he weakened France by his persecution of the Huguenots, he cautioned James against haste in Catholicizing England. Pope Innocent XI gave him similar counsel. When James sent word to him promising England's early submission to the Roman Church, he advised the King to content himself with obtaining toleration for English Catholics......James did not profit from this advice. He felt that, being fifty-two years old at his accession, he had not much time left to effect the religious changes that were dear to his heart. He had little hope for a son; a Protestant daughter would succeed him, and would overturn his work unless this should be solidly established before his death.

Step2 - Wow, thanks! Always looking for ways to sneak in another music link, ain't you? Me too. I've never heard of these ladies. That's some real music there. Will explore.

Lydia - Excellent point about the Protestant Nonjurors loyal to James II. Catholics can make the same point in reverse with respect to loyalty to Charles I. For us in the Anglosphere, whether Catholic or Protestant, the hard-won English experience of religious tolerance - not indifference or neutrality, but tolerance properly understood - ought to be defining. Indeed it was defining in the United States at the state level, though not without difficulties, from the very beginning. (Personally, I believe that General Washington's success is due to the fact that Blessed Junipero Serra offered masses for him way out in California.)

To threadjack my own thread, since this comment isn't worth an entry of its own ...

We have criticized Islam because it seeks to change the American system of law and government. Al and his tribe have responded that Christians, too, want to change the American system of law and government. They are right. I have two responses:

1. Changing our system to a more Catholic order, or a more Presbyterian order, or a more Lutheran order, etc., does not today threaten the liberties of other groups. Neither does a Christian state threaten the rights of atheists to be atheists and to express their atheism in appropriate contexts. A Christian state can easily prefer Christianity, or even one sect over the others, without persecuting anyone. Islam is a different story. Islam's socio-political scheme is always totalitarian, always winner-takes-all, everywhere it has ever been tried, without exception, at the price of endless bloodshed.

2. Tolerance only has meaning in the context of a framework with limits. If there are no limits, then there is no tolerance. The business of politics is largely that of discerning the limits of tolerance.

Andrew E. mentioned Hispanic immigration; over at VFR there is much huffing about Hispanic immigration being as much or more of a threat as Islamic immigration. But this totally defies common sense. Both Hispanic and Anglo-American cultural forms are capable of much elasticity. Where the two meet, both will change but neither will be eradicated. With Islam it is different. Islam is the culture, period, and there is no question of Islam changing one iota to accommodate anything or anyone else. Let's say you're a white, old-school Protestant American. Would you rather be a white Protestant in Santa Fe, New Mexico, or a white Protestant in the Islamized north-east suburbs of Paris? Because that is precisely the "worst-case" scenario for each immigration problem, respectively. If you have to think twice about the answer I can't help you.

Andrew E. mentioned Hispanic immigration; over at VFR there is much huffing about Hispanic immigration being as much or more of a threat as Islamic immigration. But this totally defies common sense. Both Hispanic and Anglo-American cultural forms are capable of much elasticity. Where the two meet, both will change but neither will be eradicated. With Islam it is different. Islam is the culture, period, and there is no question of Islam changing one iota to accommodate anything or anyone else. Let's say you're a white, old-school Protestant American. Would you rather be a white Protestant in Santa Fe, New Mexico, or a white Protestant in the Islamized north-east suburbs of Paris? Because that is precisely the "worst-case" scenario for each immigration problem, respectively. If you have to think twice about the answer I can't help you.

Well, like Auster, I reject the either/or scenario. Both the Hispanic and Islamic threats must be opposed. I also reject the choice between living in contemporary Santa Fe versus an Islamized Paris suburb. The real question is: which is preferrable, the Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas of 1960 or those of today? Or: the Dearborn, Michigan of 1980 or that of today? I don't think the VFR thread qualifies as "huffing", it being a legitimate discussion of an existential issue that will have much to say about the viability of the United States going forward. The commenter was criticizing those who talk only about Islam and literally nothing else, and he ranked the Islam threat right behind mass Hispanic immigration, and ranked both behind liberalism.

If I recall, Jeff C. had a post a few weeks back on race in which he sought to make clear that he understands that race is real and that it matters. But I think someone who really understands this doesn't say things like Hispanic and Anglo-American culture being capable of "much elasticity." Certainly not in the context of modern day America in which Anglo-American culture is steadily being displaced by Hispanic culture, and the false and wicked doctrine of multiculturalism reigns supreme. And as to elasticity, again, does Southern California look anything like the SoCal of 1960? Does Mexico or Central America today look anything like America? Anyone who thinks the high levels of Hispanic immigration, legal and illegal, that have been permitted over the last 40 years was not a huge, possibly fatal, mistake either doesn't know what he is talking about or isn't a conservative.

For us in the Anglosphere, whether Catholic or Protestant, the hard-won English experience of religious tolerance - not indifference or neutrality, but tolerance properly understood - ought to be defining. Indeed it was defining in the United States at the state level, though not without difficulties, from the very beginning.

Well, like Auster, I reject the either/or scenario. Both the Hispanic and Islamic threats must be opposed.

I think the equating of these two problems - and yes, they are both problems - is a grave mistake. They are different both in kind and degree. The Hispanic population has always been a part of American life, and what is more, it is capable of a high degree of assimilation. This is not just a dream: we know this from 300 years of experience in California and the American Southwest. Islam is another story. Islam is a completely alien ideology: Muslims, as Muslims (admitting the possibility of small exceptions), due to a belief system that is inherently and violently hostile to American life, are not capable of anything but superficial forms of assimilation.

It's true that some of the Hispanic population has been radicalized. It's true that many are not sufficiently assimilated, and that large enclaves of new arrivals resist assimilation. It's true that, although only a small percentage of Hispanics vote (about 28%), most of those who do, vote for the bad guys - although when it comes to popular referendums, they vote solidly pro-life and pro-family. It's also true that, due to the massive problem of illegal crossings, there is a disproportionate criminal element among them. For these and other reasons I agree that Hispanic immigration should be sharply curtailed. If the hierarchs of the Catholic Church were doing their jobs, they would offer assimilation programs for new arrivals instead of perpetuating Hispanic insularity. (Perhaps government assimilation programs might be introduced that were not liberal indoctrination programs, but I'm skeptical.)

What I reject at VFR is the racial agenda. Yes, race exists and race matters, in varying degrees as it pertains to different things, but unlike belief there is no moral content to race, and the cultural correlations of race are demonstrably (but not infinitely) elastic. In the case of Hispanic immigration race is not, by itself, an impediment to participating successfully in the civic and cultural life of the United States. Furthermore I don't expect, and I don't think anyone should demand, assimilation to such a degree that Mexican culture is completely obliterated in the families of immigrants or their descendants. I think it's fine - and indeed I think it desirable!!! - that some regions and communities have a substantial Hispanic "flavor" to them. Yes, it's true, I like Mexicans and even count a few as friends. I know that kind of attitude marks me as a "liberal" over at VFR, but I've been called worse. (Last week Brian Leiter called me a "Nazi", and a few weeks earlier I was called a "Christ-denier" for suggesting that Holocaust denial is a moral fault, so I think I can handle "liberal".)

Furthermore the racial agenda of VFR amounts to setting alight a social powder keg, and is for that reason alone highly irresponsible. It would be different if race were truly the "existential threat" to America that Auster apparently thinks it is, but racial change in a nation does not mean "national suicide" - it just means national change. The "right" of nations to remain forever racially unchanged simply does not exist. I would prefer that such changes occur slowly, all else being equal, but water under the bridge is water under the bridge and we ought to make the best of the situation.

And as to elasticity, again, does Southern California look anything like the SoCal of 1960? Does Mexico or Central America today look anything like America?

The answers are yes and yes. The facts of continuity and change are both obvious. I also suspect that Mexico and Central America have changed more to look like the United States than the United States has changed to look like them.

The real question is: which is preferrable, the Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas of 1960 or those of today? Or: the Dearborn, Michigan of 1980 or that of today?

1960, and 1980, respectively. What do I win? ;-)

But again I must insist that these questions are only superficially related. Hispanics belong in SoCal and the Southwest: Muslims do not belong in Dearborn.

William of Orange was an usurper and a villain, plain and simple. Texas would be a liberator.

A significant number of Brits didn't feel that way.

Of course, as a Virginian, I wouldn't want to be "liberated" by having Texas occupy us. I'd rather we became a republic in our own right. We've got everything we need to be the Switzerland of the East Coast.

On a side note, I'll never forget living in North Carolina and being called a "damn yankee from Virginia" by a few rednecks. (When I asked them where the capital of the Confederacy was and who supplied most of the South's better military leadership, they had no idea...)

I can't prove it, but Orlanders used to brag that this town had more churches - and more saloons! - per capita than any city in America for its size.

My wife grew up in a town of 8,000, which claimed to be the spiritual capital of the world. That is, it was home to more central seats of distinct religions, and more "churches" (identified loosely) of distinct religions. I seem to recall that there were numbered 108 different religions. Oh, did I say that it was in Calif? Fruits, nuts, and flakes: granola central.

The answers are yes and yes. The facts of continuity and change are both obvious. I also suspect that Mexico and Central America have changed more to look like the United States than the United States has changed to look like them.

An important question is to what extent can Mexico and Central America change to be more like America? And I think the answer has a lot to do with race. All races of humanity are not capable of the same level of civilization and the Mestizo peoples, under their own resources and genetic heritage, are not capable of Western civilization. This is basic anthropology, a people with an average IQ of approx. 90 cannot produce the same achievements, the same education, cultural and political institutions, as a people with an average IQ of 100. Assimilation will not change this fact and it suggests that allowing significant racial change in a nation will fundamentally alter the character and identity of a country, what Auster terms "national suicide."

But again I must insist that these questions are only superficially related. Hispanics belong in SoCal and the Southwest: Muslims do not belong in Dearborn.

Here I'm confused. Does this mean that, fifty years ago when America was 89% white and 19% black and the American southwest had a very small minority of Hispanics, this was a bad thing given that Hispanics belong in SoCal? Has it been a good thing that millions of whites have been displaced by Hispanics who are becoming a strong majority in the Southwest? This is the kind of thing that gets one labeled a liberal at VFR, not who one's friends are. My inner circle is almost exclusively South Asian (Hindu and Muslim) but I know that, in general, immigration from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is totally unnecessary and a bad idea for the United States -- granted the differences between South Asians and Hispanics.

Furthermore the racial agenda of VFR amounts to setting alight a social powder keg, and is for that reason alone highly irresponsible. It would be different if race were truly the "existential threat" to America that Auster apparently thinks it is, but racial change in a nation does not mean "national suicide" - it just means national change. The "right" of nations to remain forever racially unchanged simply does not exist. I would prefer that such changes occur slowly, all else being equal, but water under the bridge is water under the bridge and we ought to make the best of the situation.

Certainly a people, such as European-Americans, have a right to preserve their existence which includes the preservation of their race. And to say that a nation does not have the right to resist racial change ignores, I think, that the primary method by which a people today preserves itself is to carve out a nation where they maintain demographic hegemony. And VFR takes the position, with which I agree, that it is the increasing racial and religious diversity in America that is the social powder keg, not the discussion of it. I do think it's possible to mollify the inherent discord that results from increasing diversity but only by moving America further and further away from the founding vision.

I live in NYC and have for a several years, I previously lived in Los Angeles for a short while and I grew up mostly in Northern Virginia which has become much more diverse since my family moved their in 1988. I've seen some good but mostly heartbreaking change to the country as a result of immigration. I'm not blind to the positives and we've all seen the classic Hollywood Westerns such as Rio Bravo which portray a more or less successful coexistence of Anglos with a small minority of Hispanics on the southern border, but what's taking place today is light years beyond anything from John Ford or Howard Hawks. But I am glad that 4W seems to be solidly in favor of curtailing immigration, an issue that should be at or near the forefront of every patriot's mind.

Of course, as a Virginian, I wouldn't want to be "liberated" by having Texas occupy us. I'd rather we became a republic in our own right. We've got everything we need to be the Switzerland of the East Coast.

An important question is to what extent can Mexico and Central America change to be more like America?

I don't know. Why is this question so important?

And I think the answer has a lot to do with race. All races of humanity are not capable of the same level of civilization

Well, civilization is multi-layered. If by "civilization" you mean a society like ours that is permeated with advanced technology and high finance, then you're probably right. But every race is capable of enough civilization to make for a peaceful, industrious, family-centered, God-honoring society that rewards good and punishes evil ... which is more than we can say for our own society at present.

"... and the Mestizo peoples, under their own resources and genetic heritage, are not capable of Western civilization."

This is old ground that I really don't want to cover again. If you define "Western civilization" like you do race, as something static and unchanging (or as something that ought to be static and unchanging), then sure, no one is capable of Western civilization but the Westerners who were there at the beginning. But that's not helpful or accurate as a descriptive. Western civilization changes as the people change and as new peoples are incorporated into it.

This is basic anthropology, a people with an average IQ of approx. 90 cannot produce the same achievements, the same education, cultural and political institutions, as a people with an average IQ of 100.

Sure, but no true son of the West is interested in keeping everything "the same" everywhere and in perpetuity. Among other things, the West is characterized by its unique dynamism and openness - within the limits of its own paradigm. As for IQ, half of the Mestizo population have IQs over 90, so I don't think it's a terrible handicap. Mestizos with lower IQs can certainly contribute to civilization at their own level of ability, just as other people can.

... it suggests that allowing significant racial change in a nation will fundamentally alter the character and identity of a country ...

"... we've all seen the classic Hollywood Westerns such as Rio Bravo which portray a more or less successful coexistence of Anglos ..."

Forget the movies, Andrew! I've lived that more-or-less successful coexistence with Hispanics all my life and so have millions of other whites. Claims that "Mestizos are not capable of western civilization" are so obviously false and unreal that you'll have to forgive me for losing my patience. The essence of Western civilization is the centrality of Christ in everything: to that extent Hispanic influence can be an aid to recovering our own identity, even as it alters other features.

He was a bit of a clot, our James. He made some very simple mistakes at the Boyne, and then lost his nerve. No heads rolled until James made it to Ireland...then he did a runner at the Battle of the Boyne, and they've been rolling ever since.

Jeff
Good stuff! Stand your ground! If you can be dismissed as a multi-culturalist or a liberal at VFR, then you have to wonder about their grip on reality!

Uncontrolled immigration doesn't seem to help the poorest people on either side of the border. I agree that controlled and planned immigration is healthy.
Graham

"What is the challenge for young brains?"
With the number of hours kids spend in front of a screen, they live a lot of the time in two dimensions rather than three. It's interesting in terms of how you navigate the world.

"What effects do you see this having?"There are one or two things that might be desirable - for example,a raised IQ.The skills you use for IQ tests are the same as those for playing a computer game. You don't have huge recourse to economics or history or literature - it's pure mental agility. But there is direct evidence that you listen less if you multitask, and I am concerned about shorter attention span. And abstract concepts: with a medium that is visually based, how do you explain, say, honour to children? Would you go to Google and show them pictures? How do you convey a concept like that through the visual medium alone?

So there you are folks. Anthropology 101. To improve Western Society play more video games. We might listen less, see fewer connections and lose whatever cultural wisdom we have left. But we'll have greater mental agility; and in the long run, that's what a society is built on.

Among other things, the West is characterized by its unique dynamism and openness - within the limits of its own paradigm

What are the other paradigms of the West? I would say the essence of Western cilvilization is the centrality of Christ, not in everything, but in European man along with his classical heritage. A Christian China would be a truer China but it would not be Western. The West has changed much over 1700 years but a skeletal continuity has largely maintained over that time, something that would not be the case if the nations of the West were to be no longer populated predominantly by European man.

I've lived that more-or-less successful coexistence with Hispanics all my life and so have millions of other whites.

Millions of Hispanics move into southern and other parts of California over 30 years and millions of whites move out over the same time and there apparently is no causal connection. There are no significant obstacles to bringing together equal numbers of whites and Hispanics on the same land under the same government. And clearly the benefits outweigh the costs of overcoming whatever obstacles there might be. I don't see it this way.

If by "civilization" you mean a society like ours that is permeated with advanced technology and high finance

All that separates our society from others, besides our dynamism and openness, is a permeation of advanced technology and high finance? This seems like a grossly negligent reduction of the unique achievements and capabilities of a civilization that's given us the Cathedral at Reims, the Sistine Chapel, the Apollo 11 and 13 missions, the Hollywood Golden Age, the Elizabethan stage, the settling and civilizing of the American frontier, calculus, modern medicine and on and on.

I am glad however that there is at least agreement on significantly reducing current immigration levels.

is someone arguing that (a) IQ is the only or best measure of intelligence and that (b) IQ is fixed by "genes" - or "race"?

No, simply relying on a century of social science inquiry into the question which says with respect to propositions a) and b) above: a) yes, b) IQ is largely but not entirely explained by heredity. Maybe Nettle hasn't seen Charles Murray's 2005 summary of the science on this issue:

All that separates our society from others, besides our dynamism and openness, is a permeation of advanced technology and high finance? This seems like a grossly negligent reduction of the unique achievements and capabilities of a civilization that's given us the Cathedral at Reims, the Sistine Chapel, the Apollo 11 and 13 missions, the Hollywood Golden Age, the Elizabethan stage, the settling and civilizing of the American frontier, calculus, modern medicine and on and on.

Can anyone imagine our technological society producing The Cathedral at Reims, the Sistine Chapel, or the Elizabethan stage now? A sense of transcendence creates enduring art. Materialism yields only scientific and medical marvels.

What are the other paradigms of the West? I would say the essence of Western cilvilization is the centrality of Christ, not in everything, but in European man along with his classical heritage.

I'll go along with that, in terms of origins. But the West is a living organism. Just as Christ was born a Jew and yet also came for others, Western civilization was born in Europe and yet can also incorporate others.

The West has changed much over 1700 years but a skeletal continuity has largely maintained over that time, something that would not be the case if the nations of the West were to be no longer populated predominantly by European man.

There is already skeletal continuity with the West in Latin America and other nations not populated predominantly by European man. It seems that, for you, if the racial element is compromised, nothing else matters. You don't see the faith, the language, the literature or the arts, etc., as having any western connection or continuity apart from race. I think that's a pretty serious mistake.

Millions of Hispanics move into southern and other parts of California over 30 years and millions of whites move out over the same time and there apparently is no causal connection.

Who said that? Moi?

There are no significant obstacles to bringing together equal numbers of whites and Hispanics on the same land under the same government.

There are obstacles, of course.

And clearly the benefits outweigh the costs of overcoming whatever obstacles there might be.

Are you arguing with me or with Dinesh D'Souza? For some reason I'm not making myself clear. I'm opposed to the unmanageable levels of immigration from Latin America we've experienced in the last 50 years. However, it would have made perfect sense to permit lower, more digestible levels of immigration in the same time period, with an assimilation program for permanent residents and a tightly controlled bracero program for temporary workers. That didn't happen, unfortunately, but whatever the solution to the problem might be today it does not involve an open contest for racial supremacy or hegemony based upon completely false notions of Hispanic non-assimilability.

All that separates our society from others, besides our dynamism and openness, is a permeation of advanced technology and high finance? This seems like a grossly negligent reduction of the unique achievements and capabilities of a civilization that's given us the Cathedral at Reims, the Sistine Chapel, the Apollo 11 and 13 missions, the Hollywood Golden Age, the Elizabethan stage, the settling and civilizing of the American frontier, calculus, modern medicine and on and on.

Most Americans of any race are today incapable of the highest achievements you list. Latin America has already produced much in the way of beautiful art, architecture, literature, music and more in continuity with its Western patrimony. Why do you discount this? They settled large swaths of the North American frontier before the Anglos arrived. There are many excellent scientists and engineers among them today - another part of their western inheritance. There is obviously nothing that renders them racially incapable of contributing to an advanced technological society.

Nevertheless, yes, they will do these things differently, with different priorities and approaches, according to their own unique cultural matrix and their degree of integration with others in society. If that strikes you as automatically "non-western", I think you lack imagination.

I am glad however that there is at least agreement on significantly reducing current immigration levels.

"But we'll have greater mental agility; and in the long run, that's what a society is built on."

I was being ironic at this point. I'm sure that Nettle is aware of the relevant literature, and that he'll depend on sources other than the AEI for literature reviews.

Anyway
1) IQ, at best, measures one aspect of intelligence. If it is used as the sole measure of intelligence we neglect many virtues essential to the life of the mind.
2) The ability to value virtues like "honour" is more valuable to a society than mental agility.
3) IQ does not measure the creativity essential to technological innovation.
4) Technological innovation depends on certain intellectual virtues and not mere intellectual agility.
5) To compare the Bard to the Apollo missions is, well, horrible. But maybe this illustrates why our society is inclined to technocratic rather than moral solutions to social problems.

It seems that, for you, if the racial element is compromised, nothing else matters

.

Not true. Race is only one component and it's where this discussion has led. When I visit other blogs that understand race but argue that Christianity is superfluous to the West, then I object on those grounds.

Most Americans of any race are today incapable of the highest achievements you list.

Yes, yes. But those who can come from a people and not all peoples can produce the greats of the Western tradition or create the conditions for them to operate and flourish.

Just as Christ was born a Jew and yet also came for others, Western civilization was born in Europe and yet can also incorporate others.

Christianity and the West are different. One is universal, the other is not. The West can incorporate individuals from all over the world, incorporating entire peoples is different.

Latin America has already produced much in the way of beautiful art, architecture, literature, music and more in continuity with its Western patrimony.

Great. We can learn plenty from Latin America without importing an entire people.

Dear Mr. Culbreath Kudos to all of the wisdom you summarised with alacrity on this thread - especially beginning at the 5:06 p.m. post. You make this Catholic very proud.

Prolly nine Americans understand the role the Spanish played in America ditching Perfidious Albion. Heck, I live in Florida, and I can only imagine what might have happened to our fight for liberty had not the Spanish decimated the English up in the Panhandle and along the coast; and how The Crown funded the Revolution, etc etc

and, seeing as how you are a trad, you have probably read, "Blood Stained Altars" and are aware of the history of Mexico and how it had a College for men, and a College for women, and an Indian middle class, all of which pre-dated Harvard.

And as for Mr. Auster and race, we Catholics have the teaching of, among other teachings, Mit Brennender Sorge......Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the state, or a particular form of state, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and raises them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God

Can anyone imagine our technological society producing The Cathedral at Reims, the Sistine Chapel, or the Elizabethan stage now?

It took only 40 years to build The Salisbury Cathedral in England. Trying to build that today would consume a score of years in the permitting process alone.

And Cathedrals were built in Ages of Faith in Catholic and/or Christian Countries which had long periods of time when its Sacramentalism was realised in Architecture.

I remember the first time I went to Europe; to Greece. I went to Santorini. My Lord. I was blown away. The difference between here and there was like night and day.

Santorini is an island that has actualised Christian spiritual truths in its art and architecture.

One can barely make the sign of the Cross on himself without his elbow either touching or pointing at a Chapel, Church, Shrine, or Building witnessing to the Sacramentality and Incarnational reality of Christian Culture. As God split time in two at the Incarnation, the Greeks have, in one sense, split nature and spirit in two before reconfiguring both back into the unity of its beautiful, good, and true, Christian architecture.

The ancient Greeks, so expert in the sciences and the arts, especially philosophy and the natural sciences, had perfected the natural virtues of fortitude, temperance, prudence and justice and, having thus been prepared by God, were, when once converted, first by the great Apostle Paul on the marble rock at Aeropagus beside the Acropolis in Athens, delighted to assent to the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity and the fullness of Faith and the consequential result was that the Greeks participated in the nuptials whereby the reality of the knowledge of nature exchanged vows with the Divine Revelation of God and the fruit of that marriage was actualised in the Christian architecture so beautifully realized all over Sanrtorini.

Thousands upon thousands of miles I had traveled and yet I felt as though I had just reached my true home. Good Lord.

And I remember all of that as though it were yesterday.

No, America could never build Cathedrals until a sizable population of Catholics had arrived; and now that we Christian Catholics are deracinated, we don't build Cathedrals anymore.

Vermont Crank - I was in total agreement until you attributed their loss of spiritual energy on Catholics being "deracinated." That contradicts the thrust of your argument and the Encyclical from which you quoted. Over assimilation or unthinking conformity seem more viable culprits.

I know some of my colleagues disagree, but in my opinion VFR is best ignored rather than engaged. Most of the time, anyway. Andrew E. is a frequent commenter and a courteous one, so I don't mind engaging him.

Vermont Crank, thank you for the kind words and, once again, for gracing this page with your sensus Catholicus - something I as a convert still struggle to acquire.

Don Colacho, in the context of VC's remark, I don't think "deracinate" refers particularly to race. The first definition I found is "to remove or separate from a native environment or culture". For Catholics in the U.S. that is precisely what has happened. Our "native environment" as Western Catholics is something along the lines of Santorini island, as VC beautifully described it; but today we live in a world of monolithic suburbs, strip malls, industrial parks and glass skyscrapers, in most cases deprived even of what used to be an ordinary community parish life.

But those who can come from a people and not all peoples can produce the greats of the Western tradition or create the conditions for them to operate and flourish.

Your phrasing is a bit awkward here, but it seems you are saying two things: 1) only white people can produce works in the tradition of, say, a Bach or a Michelangelo; and 2) only white people can create or sustain an environment in which such works can flourish. Do I understand you correctly? These would be incredibly bold claims. I just want to make sure I understand before responding.

No, not at all! As I see it you seem to take the Lewis-Huntington thesis seriously, and believe that a "clash of the civilisations" between Christian and Islamic cultures is inevitable. And that this is mainly due to Islamic Imperialism.

I think that there is a "Muslim problem". Many Muslim academics agree; there is nothing immoral in addressing this problem. I simply believe that there are many Muslims who do not share the "Islamic Imperialist Impulse". They do not desire conflict, and do not hold to a definition of Jihad or Sharia that would demand conflict. And I believe that many Muslims who do share the 'III' will redefine their beliefs in the face of hard political reality. I would also argue that your specific policy proposals would result in a net loss for the USA's security.

But your disagreement is with a set of political doctrines that many other Muslims obviously hold. They do not hold these beliefs because the IMF is unjust, or because they are upset by US foreign policy.

For Catholics in the U.S. that is precisely what has happened. Our "native environment" as Western Catholics is something along the lines of Santorini island, as VC beautifully described it; but today we live in a world of monolithic suburbs, strip malls, industrial parks and glass skyscrapers, in most cases deprived even of what used to be an ordinary community parish life.

American Catholics contributed greatly to the construction of the landscape hostile to a life of the spirit. Conformity and over-assimilation seem to be our great sins since we voluntarily allowed ourselves to be removed or separated from a native environment or culture.". Besides, in leaving Europe, were we really deserting a culture more conducive to religious expression?

Your phrasing is a bit awkward here, but it seems you are saying two things: 1) only white people can produce works in the tradition of, say, a Bach or a Michelangelo; and 2) only white people can create or sustain an environment in which such works can flourish. Do I understand you correctly?

Let me try to expand a bit. In terms of, for example, raw intellgence, say that someone has to have an IQ of at least 145 -- or about 3 standard deviations above a mean IQ of 100 if a standard deviation represents about 15 IQ points -- to contribute something to civilization that is on par with the greats of the Western canon. This means that among the white population there are 1300 people out of every million who have the biological potential to contribute something new and lasting to the arts and sciences. But if Mestizos have an average IQ of 90 or, as Joseph Kay mentions in his article I linked earlier, an IQ closer to 85 then a Mestizo needs to be 4 standard deviations above their mean to be above 145 IQ, or 31 people out of a million -- less than 3% as many whites. So a population's average IQ and standard deviation matters greatly to what the far right of the distribution can accomplish. Of course, if the threshold for lasting contribution is even higher then what I've assumed here, the differences between the two populations grows larger. A side note, from what I've read there is some evidence that, notwithstanding their higher average, the standard deviation of IQ of East Asian societies may not be as high as whites, possibly explaining, at least in part, their relative lack of original achievement as measured by, say, Charles Murray's study Human Accomplishment. I should mention at this point that I agree with those who say that it's completely inadequate to discuss civilizational achievement solely in terms of IQ. For instance, Mestizo society could be much better at allowing their gifted individuals to achieve their potential, though for me, Murray's study strongly suggests otherwise.

In line with the idea of needing to look beyond IQ to discuss these matters, I think Auster's comment followng Joseph Kay's article, which focuses heavily on IQ, does a good job beginning to flesh it out a bit more:

I agree with Stephen's observations. Ever since I began to write about the problems of immigration and assimilation, my emphasis has been on cultural/national identification and loyalty, not on differences of intelligence. Mr. Kay seems to think that identification with American cultural norms and loyalty to America comes easily, even automatically to people from non-Western cultures. The developments in America over the last 40 years demonstrate the opposite.

I also prefer to emphasize the cultural identity argument over the intelligence argument because the former avoids the question of superiority/inferiority. It is not my main position that non-Westerners should not be allowed to immigrate into the West because they are less intelligent than whites--that, after all, is an argument that would lead us to letting ourselves be taken over by the billion-strong Chinese. Rather non-Westerners should not immigrate into the West simply because they are different from us, with different cultures, different histories, different collective identities and agendas as peoples, different mental outlook, different physical and racial type producing different aesthetic ideals, and on and on. Among those differences are differences of intelligence. I agree with Mr. Kay that the lower intelligence of Mestizos and blacks is, in and of itself, a persuasive reason to stop their mass immigration into this country. But, in my view, that argument should be seen as just one part of the overall argument that non-Westerners are unassimilable to our cultural norms and identity. It is true, as I always say, that a small number of individuals of non-Western background may adopt Western ideals and loyalties and join the Western society without changing it. But such cultural assimilation is impossible when we're speaking of millions of non-Western immigrants changing the very nature of the society.

"However, I am reassured by Jeff and others trying to engage with some of these guys. And I think that it takes a degree of courage to do this."

Courage is not enough. One will need a lot of skill and acuity sparring with such a formidable opponent.
Lawrence Auster is extremely intelligent, very eloquent, and endowed with brilliantly analytical mind principled debater. He never wastes his mental powers on defending his ego, so he may focus all his skills on the subject. And on top of that, for the most part, he happens to be right.

To be absolutely clear, Jeff, I think that you're one of the most interesting characters that I've come across on the web. I know that you're a "Mere Christian" and that you're pro-life/pro-family. So we're fellow travellers.
Beyond that, I don't think that I could predict any of your opinions. I am very sorry if I appeared rude or dismissive.

I should mention at this point that I agree with those who say that it's completely inadequate to discuss civilizational achievement solely in terms of IQ.

This appears as a surprising, but overdue and understated acknowledgement.

After Verdun, Auschwitz, legalized abortion, genetic manipulation, cloning, murderous isms and ideologies, and countless other horrors, one should ask what good is a high IQ unleavened by humility and traditional Christian restraints? And, the state of modern art is a stinging rebuke to only the most primitive form of intelligence.

Man cannot live on space missions, Viagra and 64 inch plasma TV's alone, yet in act of colossal stupidity, that is the attempt being made by late Western man.

Rather non-Westerners should not immigrate into the West simply because they are different from us, with different cultures, different histories, different collective identities and agendas as peoples, different mental outlook, different physical and racial type producing different aesthetic ideals, and on and on. Among those differences are differences of intelligence.

O.k., what is the Western agenda and identity at this point? Forgive, those of us who conclude it to be a death-trip bathed in sensuality and riches.

To be absolutely clear, Jeff, I think that you're one of the most interesting characters that I've come across on the web. I know that you're a "Mere Christian" and that you're pro-life/pro-family. So we're fellow travellers. Beyond that, I don't think that I could predict any of your opinions. I am very sorry if I appeared rude or dismissive.

You weren't at all rude or dismissive, just understandably surprised - so no apology is necessary. I, too, am grateful to count you and most W4 readers as fellow travelers despite our robust disagreements in some areas.

Often enough, in the context of public policy discussions, I am sure that I must sound like a "mere Christian" (in the positive sense intended by C.S. Lewis). With Holy Mother Church I happily confess that all baptized believers in Christ are properly called Christians. But apart from this, the appellation of "mere Christian" doesn't please me! I consider it a defect if I don't sound like a Catholic first! That's probably something I need to work on.

First, let me just re-establish the kind of America I am defending. Alexis de Tocqueville observed 150 years ago that the United States was a multi-racial land. He noted that the American Indians had much promise and potential for integration into the conquering Anglo-American civilization, but at the time were tragically mistreated and, with a few notable exceptions, ended up fiercely opposed to integration. The blacks, on the other hand, eagerly desired assimilation and yet were destined to encounter perpetual difficulties. The point is that tensions of a multi-racial society were present from the beginning. That's the price of conquering an inhabited land and importing African slaves. Since that time, despite some tragic missteps, America has succeeded in assimilating millions who are racially dissimilar to the conquering peoples. It would be a grave and foolish and dangerous mistake, with millions of non-whites now well integrated into society, to insist on a racially pure America, or even an American order defined self-consciously by race or racial hegemony. To do so shows an appalling indifference to living peaceably with one's neighbors. We have an unalterably multi-racial country. One doesn't have to like it, but one has to accept it if one wants to be an American. And in accepting this fact, this unalterable reality, the language of racial superiority or hegemony is worse than impolite, it is an assault on the peace and stability of our republic.

Therefore I am defending the fact of a multi-racial America, and the kind of language and discourse that is necessary, in charity and justice, to further the goal of a united people. A prayer of 1928 BCP expresses this aim most beautifully:

Bless our land with honourable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

I don't believe that the incendiary racial agenda of VFR is helpful towards this end, to say the least. More to follow ...

That I am defending the fact of a multi-racial America does not mean that I favor mass immigration. I would prefer much slower rates of immigration overall, and even a complete cessation for a time if that were morally possible. I don't subscribe to the argument that a sovereign country owes nothing to its neighbors - permitting immigration might be morally obligatory in some cases - but neither do I believe that America owes everything to everybody, which is what our immigration policy has reflected for much too long. I do believe that assimilability ought to be a factor in immigration policy, and that sometimes assimilabiliy correlates with race. In the United States assimilation traditionally permits a generous space for ethnic cultures and communities to flourish while simultaneously participating in the larger society. If these ethnic ties decrease in importance over time, that will not be so much of a loss if the dominant culture is strong and wholesome and worthy of assimilating to. So it's important not to weaken the dominant culture of the United States with levels of immigration that make assimilation undesireable or even unnecessary.

The IQ data is fascinating on the level of anthropology but not so much when it comes to immigration. We should desire immigrants who are good moreso than those who are smart. Those whose lower IQs happen to correlate with their own social pathologies ought not be admitted to the United States in the first place. Will immigrants with lower average IQs somehow diminish the capacity of Euro-American super-geniuses to do great things? I don't believe that to be the case at all. But what if non-whites dilute the Euro-American gene pool by intermarriage, you might ask? Won't that bring down the average IQ of the nation? That's a possibility, I suppose, but not at all a forgone conclusion. We don't know precisely how IQ develops in individuals, much less entire nations. Undoubtedly there can be a genetic component: I'm not about to argue that race is irrelevant here. But other factors might include nutrition, discipline, intellectual stimulation, early education, cultural and even spiritual inputs. IQ varies not only between racial groups, but also within racial groups, such as the IQ gap between urban and rural dwellers, and also within the same racial groups over time.

But supposing that the average IQ of the United States is reduced as a result of immigration. That doesn't bother me at all. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, IQ only captures a certain kind of intelligence. If we get fewer Sistine Chapels but more packed cathedrals out of the deal, then we come out ahead. If we get fewer astronauts but more religious vocations and more saints, then we come out ahead. I love the West, and can't imagine not being a Western man, but the value of an unchanging Western identity is not absolute. The highest goal for our country is to become, decisively, a strong and stable outpost of Christendom.

First, let me just re-establish the kind of America I am defending. Alexis de Tocqueville observed 150 years ago that the United States was a multi-racial land. He noted that the American Indians had much promise and potential for integration into the conquering Anglo-American civilization, but at the time were tragically mistreated and, with a few notable exceptions, ended up fiercely opposed to integration. The blacks, on the other hand, eagerly desired assimilation and yet were destined to encounter perpetual difficulties. The point is that tensions of a multi-racial society were present from the beginning.

Well, okay but remember one very important data point: America in 1960 was 89% white, 10% black, 1% other. I would describe this as a bi-racial society, not a multi-racial one. This is a reality that cries out for an explanation, beyond simply that America was racist for a while. Was the path from Tocqueville to 1960 a series of historical accidents, where if a dozen or so major decision points had gone in different directions we'd have reached a very different destination? Or was the path a combination of conscious choices made freely by man and the working out of an inherent nature of man which leads him to desire and seek out, or even require, a minimum level of homogeneity to function properly as man was intended to function? I'm sure there are other possibilities but the answer, probably not knowable with certainty but maybe with high probability and worth exploring regardless, will have a lot to say about the changes to America since 1960.

There is also the question of whether or not the relative peacefulness we have in an increasingly diverse America was bought for a price, say, the institution of our group rights regime favoring minority groups? the de facto ceding of territory via white flight? the loss of the traditional American identity and our folk heroes? the decimation of our educational standards, greatly diminishing the achievements our society is capable of? trillions of dollars in welfare spending to lift up the performance of minority groups? What if maintaining order in our current "unalterably multi-racial" society requires that these changes over the last 40 years I listed above be made permanent, are we willing to accept that? I think these are all open and legitimate questions. And I wouldn't describe VFR as having so much a racial agenda as having strong views on race. I think most of VFR's discussions of race are a reaction to and analysis of the racial agenda of the Left and the politically active arms of various minority groups.

Rather non-Westerners should not immigrate into the West simply because they are different from us, with different cultures, different histories, different collective identities and agendas as peoples, different mental outlook, different physical and racial type producing different aesthetic ideals, and on and on ... It is true, as I always say, that a small number of individuals of non-Western background may adopt Western ideals and loyalties and join the Western society without changing it. But such cultural assimilation is impossible when we're speaking of millions of non-Western immigrants changing the very nature of the society.

Well, there are a number of things wrong with this argument from my perspective. Being "different from us" is just an extraordinarily shallow reason for excluding immigrants. It's true that some differences are problematic: dangerous religious beliefs, repulsive cultural practices, criminality, and so forth, are legitimate basis for exclusion. But other differences are less important. That immigrants have different histories than natives is not an impediment: Americans already have a proliferation of ethnic histories, but after a few generations those histories, too, become "naturalized". Many initially negative differences (language barriers, etc.) can be easily overcome with assimilation. Other differences are quite positive (religious devotion, family life, work ethic, etc.) and should be welcomed for that reason. Physical and biological differences, in themselves, hardly matter except to make life more interesting.

Which brings me to Auster's heightened aesthetic sensibility. This can be a fine attribute in many fields, indeed an essential one. But Auster extends his aesthetic ideals, inappropriately, into a worldview whereby nations should not deviate from a given phenotype. That the United States has never been a nation with a common, consistent, and unchanging phenotype cannot be anything but an aesthetic defect. Auster's social aestheticism extends well beyond the question of immigration as can be seen by his frequent criticisms of physical and biological traits - Sarah Palin's voice, Michelle Obama's physique, Janet Napolitano's eyes, and on and on. Auster defends his obsession with physical traits here:

The exaggerated priority Auster gives to physical and biological characteristics - which I am convinced is a powerful psychological motive for his anti-immigration stance - has consequences for life across the board. In any society there are a fair number of people born with unusual physical traits, defects, and oddities. Exaggerating the importance of a physical ideal, as did the ancient Greeks and others, leads directly to infanticide and other horrors. So far as I know Auster has no children. But if he ever had a child born with eyes like Janet Napolitanos, we may assume that the unfortunate "bug eyed ... freak ... from another planet" would not be well treated. Alas, as a Protestant, he does not have Blessed Margaret of Castello ( http://catholicism.org/blessed-margaret-castello.html ) to help him put physical appearance in perspective.

Graham, to be honest, I'd rather live with more white collar crime and fewer people who are going to mug/murder/beat/rape me and/or my loved ones on the streets or in our homes. Not that I hold any brief for white collar crime, but some problems are more immediately disruptive and urgent than others.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't be crying if a bunch of high-IQ ethics profs. were out looking for a real job. Medical ethics is even worse than business ethics.

There is also the question of whether or not the relative peacefulness we have in an increasingly diverse America was bought for a price, say, the institution of our group rights regime favoring minority groups? the de facto ceding of territory via white flight? the loss of the traditional American identity and our folk heroes? the decimation of our educational standards, greatly diminishing the achievements our society is capable of? trillions of dollars in welfare spending to lift up the performance of minority groups? What if maintaining order in our current "unalterably multi-racial" society requires that these changes over the last 40 years I listed above be made permanent, are we willing to accept that?

I absolutely do not accept that the relative peacefulness of our current situation was "bought at the price" of the corruptions you delineate - corruptions which hurt the people they purport to help, and which quite obviously serve to exacerbate rather than soothe existing racial tensions.

I suppose it depends on the white collar crime. If it could leave me homeless and penniless, I might trade it in for a blackjack to the back of the head and a stolen wallet.
The trick is convincing voters that it's better to have more husbands than to raise IQ levels or employment. Society only seems to notice what it can measure; and that means we worry about symptoms rather than illnesses.
In the long run, interested and dedicated parents in traditional family structure will raise education levels, reduce violent crime, and so forth. But we would not see the benefits for a generation. Politicians would have to pay the cost in the short term. And so we're stuck in a rut.

In 1960 many Hispanics, American Indians, and mixed-race people were categorized as "white", so I don't think these numbers are useful to our purposes.

I don't think it's helpful to overlook that, aside from a small black minority, virtually all of the racial diversity we have in America today is the result of changes having taken place over the last 45 years, subsequent to the removal of the 1920's immigration quota system which was designed specifically to place strict limits on the number and national origins of new immigrants.

I absolutely do not accept that the relative peacefulness of our current situation was "bought at the price" of the corruptions you delineate - corruptions which hurt the people they purport to help, and which quite obviously serve to exacerbate rather than soothe existing racial tensions.

In my view this is, as I said, an open and legitimate question. For example, what if white flight had never occurred? What if middle class whites had remained in Southern California and Detroit and so on? What if they had stayed and insisted that the community standards and quality of life remain unchanged, the lowering of which being the impetus for leaving? I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a certain measure of conflict was avoided by having the white middle class cede territory to blacks and Hispanics in various places and times. Perhaps the same could be said for inter-ethnic rivalries among whites in America, though I doubt the scale of change is comparable.

Interestingly, the blogger Mencius Moldbug has a string of comments up over at a post on Dennis Mangan's site, in which he says in part that mesoamericans, which he describes broadly as a peasant people, could definitely be assimilated into America, just not under our current form, or our intended form, of government. And on those two points, assimilation and form of government, I agree with him.

Andrew, I'm a Californian, so my perspective might be a little skewed. We've had well-integrated Hispanic and Asian communities here forever, though whites have been a majority since the 19th century. Self-identifying as "hispanic" wasn't even an option until the 1970s: those of Mexican origin were "white" for census purposes.

But yes, it's true that most of the racial diversity is of recent vintage. I don't think that needs to be overlooked. My point is that earlier immigrants proved, contra VFR, that Hispanic assimilation is possible and that race is not an obstacle. Today's immigrants prove this as well, despite large numbers of unassimilated Hispanics. California's astonishing 2-3 million illegals tend to stand out, wreaking havoc in some parts of the state, while assimilated Hispanic citizens and permanent residents go about their business - like the SF police officer in Moldburg's story.

The short-term answer is simply this: repatriate most illegals, set up an orderly program for temporary workers, curtail legal immigration until our schools and institutions are de-radicalized, and encourage (with gov't financial aid) churches and reliably non-leftist charities to facilitate the assimilation of those who need it. What constitutes "assimilation", though, will need to be thoroughly re-worked.

Or a high IQ might give you some indication of his likelihood to commit white collar crime if he went to an Ivy League College and attended a standard business ethics class!

No greater predictor of rapacious criminality than the resume which includes these neon red warnings under previous experience and favorite "charities"; Goldman Sachs, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Planned Parenthood.

I love the West, and can't imagine not being a Western man, but the value of an unchanging Western identity is not absolute.The highest goal for our country is to become, decisively, a strong and stable outpost of Christendom.

Recognizing that The West and Christendom are no longer synonymous is the first step towards that goal.

Interestingly, the blogger Mencius Moldbug has a string of comments up over at a post on Dennis Mangan's site, in which he says in part that mesoamericans, which he describes broadly as a peasant people, could definitely be assimilated into America, just not under our current form, or our intended form, of government. And on those two points, assimilation and form of government, I agree with him.

As a statistician might put it, the "distribution" of democracy-favorable traits is presently less generous for the Hispanic population as a whole. That's partly what I like about it. Only 28% of eligible Hispanics actually vote. I find that refreshing, a sign of humility and realism. Perhaps even 28% is too high for them. It's probably too high for the rest of us too, though that could change with a sufficiently motivated electorate. I don't think this is inconsistent with a country like ours. The politicization of everyone and everything, a product of egalitarian democracy, has little in common with the founding principles of the American republic.

This illustrates something I have been saying for years: part of what motivates opposition to "third world" immigration is leftist egalitarianism disguised as conservatism. The presence of the unequal among us offends. Inequality is not supposed to exist here. If it does exist, we want it out of sight. We're not supposed to have classes or social hierarchies in the United States. Everyone should be middle class with the potential for becoming wealthy. Janitors and maids and laborers and servants are supposed to be climbing the ladder to middle management if they are not to be denigrated as "losers". Citizens are supposed to have informed political opinions about every issue under the sun. Everyone must be college educated. Everyone must "participate" in democracy. We are ill at ease with the humble and lowly. If we must talk to them, we try to pretend they are on the way to "greater" things. A curse on this wickedness! If Hispanic immigration has helped to expose the lie, then it has done quite a lot of good.

I’ve been reading VFR since not too long after Jim Kalb handed it over to Auster and started Turnabout so I guess I’m a VFR’r. I’m sure your not comforted but I wouldn’t refer to you as a liberal or multiculturalist.

I would refer to you as a racial-liberal i.e. you are a liberal with respect to race and by “liberal” I mean more something like “libertarian” rather than “Hillary Clinton.” So I hope you don’t consider “racial libertarian” insulting.

I think with respect to race one can be a racial reactionary/rightist, a racial-conservative, a racial-liberal or a racial leftist. I would guess that the majority of people are racial liberals, a smaller number are racial leftists and a very small number are explicit racial-conservatives or racial-reactionaries. I’m a racial conservative and I think Auster is too. I think you have indicated in the past that the likelihood of white-racial politics occurring is pretty slim. So I don’t think Auster is somehow playing with fire by writing what he does on a blog in internet land where there’s a million other blogs.

WRT Latinos I’d say the following. They have all of South America (a whole continent), most of the land area in the Carribean, and a substantial fraction of the habitable land area of North America (Mexico, Central America). Do they have to have the whole blasted Western Hemisphere?

When people at VFR say that Latino immigration is a bigger threat than Muslim I don’t think they mean that individually or culturally Latinos are more threatening than Muslims. I’d prefer to live in Mexico vs Saudi Arabia. In Bolivia vs Afghanistan, etc. I think the point is that Latinos have the numbers + geographic proximity + existing demographic foothold to overwhelm us and we’ll be a Latino country. I don’t think Muslims have that in North America and I don’t forsee it short of a mass conversion of whites, latinos, Africans ,etc to Islam.

And Jeff I'd refer to you as a racial-liberal on occasions when it's relevant. So I don't think it's important to constantly tag you as a racial-liberal as if it's a crucial, defining part of your socio-political philosophy. Obviously anyone reading your posts would know you're downright reactionary with respect to most issues. Islamophiles to the left of you, racists to the right here you are .....

I'm not comforted & overjoyed by the positions I take and, if I'm a racialist, I'm a reluctant one. But I think Auster's mostly right.

It's Auster's blog but he refers to himself as "editor" which suggests that his reader's input is part of VFR's editorial content. I've seen other entries at VFR where his readers suggest the point made in the recent entry but I have no idea where Larry is on this.

I wrote "Jeff" not "Graham." I wasn't talking to you but racial conservative means a person who thinks some reasonable degree of ancestral identity should be conserved and that racially homogeneous societies are more desirable. It's one issue and a person can be conservative, liberal, leftist, etc. on a whole host of issues. Jeff posts about race e.g. his "Race and the Church" so ask HIM for a definition.

It's one issue not a socio-political philosophy so there isn't extensive "content." It's one thing (among many) that mattered to all my grandparents and all my great-grandparents (at least the ones I knew) even the Christian ones.

Bruce, thanks for your comments. I don't mind the "race-libertarian" appellation. I'm also an IQ-libertarian, a temperament-libertarian, a height-libertarian, and a voice-libertarian. Anyway, I'm going to close comments on this post since I don't really want to monitor them anymore. Kudos to all for a civil discussion.